On 10/9/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:13:07 -0400, Phil Sandifer
<Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Danny, the Office does not and should not be
determining inclusion
criteria on its own and imposing them without the consent of the
community. Fleshlight survived AfD three times. For the Office to
declare "Sorry, community - you're wrong" is a new approach for the
Office, and one I think is a very, very bad one.
Think of it as an advanced example of assuming good faith. The
company cannot bear for the "advertising value" of "their" article
to
be diluted. The only way we can accommodate that is to delete it.
Danny was very kind to do this, and the project is not measurably
poorer as a result, it being trivially easy to find the product on the
internets should one be so inclined.
I'm not understanding this point -- why then do we have articles on
things such as [[Pipe organ]] or even people such as [[Donald Knuth]]
-- both of these can be easily looked up online, and they take up some
much more disk space than [[Fleshlight]]
Sincerely,
Silas Snider
[[User:Simonfairfax]]
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silas Snider is a proud member of the Association of Wikipedians Who
Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category
of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad
Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist
(AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD) , and the Harmonious
Editing Club of Wikipedia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------